2016 Mercedes-Benz SLC prices and specs released

Mercedes-Benz SLC prices and specifications have been released, with the formerly named SLK starting at £30,495 in entry-level SLC200 Sport guise.

Two 2.0-litre petrol engines are available, offering 184bhp in the SLC200, which replaces the SLK200, and 245bhp in the SLK250-replacing SLC300. One diesel engine is offered, with a 2.1-litre unit producing 204bhp uit in the SLC250d, along with CO2 emissions of 114g/km. Emissions for the petrol engines start at 137g/km in the SLC200 equipped with a 9G-Tronic gearbox, 138g/km for the SLC300 with a standard-fit 9G-Tronic ’box and 150g/km for the six-speed manual SLC200.

No direct replacement for the SLK350 is catered for in the new line-up, UK deliveries of which are set to begin in the spring.

The top-spec SLC43 starts at £46,355. Pictured here at the Detroit motor show, the SLC43 replaces the SLK55 AMG. Power for the heavily reworked rear-wheel-drive roadster hails from the same twin-turbocharged 3.0-litre V6 petrol engine used by the S400 Coupé, here using a 9G-Tronic automatic transmission.

With 362bhp and 384lb ft, the new engine delivers 53bhp and 14lb ft less than the naturally aspirated 5.5-litre V8 petrol unit used by its predecessor. But while the SLK55 AMG developed its 398lb ft peak at 4500rpm, the SLC43's can be tapped from 2000rpm. The 0-62mph sprint takes just 4.7sec and the top speed is electronically limited to 155mph.

The SLK55 used a seven-speed version of AMG’s Speedshift automatic gearbox, while the SLC43 is fitted with Mercedes-Benz’s latest nine-speed 9G-Tronic automatic transmission, which features Comfort, Sport, Sport Plus, Eco and Individual driving modes.

Two spec levels are available: Sport and AMG Line. Sport models feature 17in alloys as standard, while AMG Line brings 18in AMG Line alloys. In SLC200 and 250d format, AMG Line brings a £4000 premium to the respective £30,495 and £32,995 prices, while the SLC300 is only available in AMG Line spec, at £39,985. The 9G-Tronic gearbox on the SLC200 is a £1485 option.

Official performance claims put the SLC43’s 0-62mph time at 4.7sec – 0.1sec slower than the SLK55 - while top speed remains limited to 155mph. The move to the smaller capacity engine has brought about a 2.5mpg improvement in combined cycle fuel economy at 36.2mpg, with average CO2 emissions of 178g/km.

The '43' model designation was first used on the C43 AMG launched in 1997. Powered by a naturally aspirated 4.3-litre V8 petrol engine, the predecessor to today’s C63 produced 302bhp and 302lb ft, sufficient to provide the 1571kg saloon with a 0-62mphh time of 6.5sec and a 155mph top speed.

Other changes introduced with the new SLC include an SLC180 entry-level model, which is not coming to the UK for the forseeable future. It uses a turbocharged 1.6-litre four-cylinder engine developing 154bhp and 184lb ft.

The SLK200-replacing SLC200 also receives a new engine, with the old 1.8-litre unit replaced by a more contemporary 2.0-litre powerplant delivering the same 181bhp as before but an added 22lb ft at 221lb ft.

Among the styling changes brought to the SLC are a new front bumper with larger ducts for improved engine bay cooling, an altered grille featuring a Mercedes-Benz’s latest diamond-shaped insert design and revised headlights with integrated LED daytime running lights and fresh internal graphics. At the rear, there are new LED tail-light graphics and a reprofiled bumper with integrated tailpipes and a more pronounced diffuser element.

Revisions to the operating procedure of the SLC’s folding hard-top now allow it to be to opened without having to manually set the luggage cover in place. It also now operates at speeds of up to 25mph, allowing it to be opened and closed while setting off rather than at standstill, as with the older SLK. Buyers can continue to order the optional Magic Sky Control glass roof, which employs an electrochromatic process to vary the amount of light entering the cabin.

Inside, the SLC retains the same dashboard as before. However, it receives revised instruments, new trim applications, a larger 4.in infotainment monitor and a new three-spoke steering wheel, among other changes. Standard safety equipment now includes Active Brake Assist – a collision prevention system that features autonomous braking, Attention Assist - a system which detects and alerts drivers to signs of fatigue, Active Bonnet, which raises the bonnet to protect pedestrians in the event of a collision, remote boot lid release, and automatic headlights.

Join the debate

Somehow this car has gone wrong. Twenty-odd years ago, the market could not get enough of the first SLK. Waiting lists, people paying a premium, rock-solid residuals, etc. But not now. It's as if it has been found out. Ditto the CLK; in 1997 somebody paid a £20k premium to own one of the first ones. Those days are long gone and replacing a 'K' with a 'C' won't bring them back.

That dash looks obsolete already with its mass of buttons and tiny media screen. It looks 10 years out of date! I found the first-gen of this car so desirable back in the day. Today its just meh...like most of Mercs range for that matter. Mind you the upcoming new E-class seems to have potential though.

This car has always looked like two design concepts stuck together, as though they could not decide about direction of the design. The front and rear just don't match. I have always struggled too with the rear light graphic, especially how the corner has a large radius yet the crease line above it means that you expect the light to end in a sharp point. After the first SLK which was such a sharp piece of design (over large rear lights not withstanding) each successive generation has become less successful - hardly progress! It's the same with the bigger SL which has lost all of the elegance of its forbears. Is this a coincidence?

I have to agree with the above comments: the first generation R170 model was a beautifully simple and well resolved design. Subsequent models have become fussier and uglier. One detail particularly offends me: the original model had a full width rear window, but subsequent models have ugly black fillets either side of a narrower window, presumably to make the roof take up less space when folded into the boot. I would happily sacrifice a bit of boot space for the better appearance and, in any event, the remaining boot space was perfectly adequate in a small coupé. All that being said, the R170, although beautiful, was a crock of s**t! I had the misfortune to own one and spent a great deal of money replacing parts that failed prematurely on a low mileage, garaged and cared for car. At least I got rid of it before it started to rust! The experience has, more than a decade later, made me reluctant to consider another Mercedes-Benz, even though I know that their quality has improved immeasurably since the dark days of the late 1990's. The company's attitude didn't help matters. They seemed completely focused on corporate lease or personal finance deal customers, presumably for the repeat business that would naturally come around when the leases expired or the baloon payment became due. As a private cash buyer who kept the car longer than three years, I was made to feel very much a second class customer at the main dealer network.

The SLC43 is not an AMG model if the engine isn't unique to AMG cars and hand-built by AMG engine builders. What the fuck is going on? This downsizing trend has backed MB into a corner here and I don't think they have an engine to put in this car. If they use the 4.0, then it takes prestige away from the AMG-GT and the new E63 that will use it. If they use the 2.0, it won't have enough power and you're replacing a V8 with an I4 :\ . But this car is supposed to be in the "C"-class range. SLC. It should perhaps have been called SLA. Really though, the nomenclature doesn't even make sense. 45 for the 2.0, 43 for the 3.0. Did MB-AMG forget about this car? Where is the AMG V6? But let's think about that- if there was an AMG 3.0, which other cars would use it? Other C cars like the C-class and GLC? They're using the 4.0. A class cars? nope, they're using the 2.0. So should they have developed an AMG only for this car? Well, yes, if they're going to call it an AMG. The 3.0 doesn't even make different power and torque figures than the 450 AMG-sport cars. It's (presumably) even built in the same place, against AMG tradition. This car should most definitely NOT be called the SLC43 with the 450 3.0. end rant....

The SLC43 is not an AMG model if the engine isn't unique to AMG cars and hand-built by AMG engine builders. What the fuck is going on? This downsizing trend has backed MB into a corner here and I don't think they have an engine to put in this car. If they use the 4.0, then it takes prestige away from the AMG-GT and the new E63 that will use it. If they use the 2.0, it won't have enough power and you're replacing a V8 with an I4 :\ . But this car is supposed to be in the "C"-class range. SLC. It should perhaps have been called SLA. Really though, the nomenclature doesn't even make sense. 45 for the 2.0, 43 for the 3.0. Did MB-AMG forget about this car? Where is the AMG V6? But let's think about that- if there was an AMG 3.0, which other cars would use it? Other C cars like the C-class and GLC? They're using the 4.0. A-class cars? nope, they're using the 2.0. So should they have developed an AMG only for this car? Well, yes, if they're going to call it an AMG. The 3.0 doesn't even make different power and torque figures than the 450 AMG-sport cars. It's (presumably) even built in the same place, against AMG tradition. This car should most definitely NOT be called the SLC43 with the 450 3.0. end rant....

This is horrible .. Whom ever stated the original was best is correct .. I reject it coming out and thought how simple yet good looking it was nice taught lines , solid looking yet very resolved and cohesive .. Even today I like it! Was like a premium mx-5 in its size and feel.

Good luck with your search. There are plenty about for not very much money. Post facelift R170s, identifiable by side repeater indicators in the door mirrors rather than on the front wings, are supposed to be less troublesome, but watch out for rusting (or filled) wheelarches. By the way, they may look like a premium MX-5, but the handling is pretty unsporting, albeit safe and stable.